Healthy Markup -
RE: "Please split hairs now on the difference between "good for her" and "she'll lose more in the long run.""

Quite simple – when I said "she'll lose more" it was clearly in reference to losing more jobs. How many jobs are lost in the long run may or may not have anything to do with some theoretical person's preferences. I'm not sure what the conflict is.

Michael Smith -
RE: "This is typical of your posts — it begins with and rests upon an unsupported assertion. Why is the situation with manufacturing employment a “crises”? What is your definition of a “crises”? You don’t explain or show — you merely assert."

Yes – if you ONLY quote that one section it looks like I'm just asserting something. But I specifically said manufacturing is losing a large amount of jobs. Insofar as that can be considered a crisis, it's a crisis.

RE: "When, and in what fields of employment, has there ever been a time of “no prospect” of loss of employment to competition? Under what conditions is anyone entitled to view their jobs as completely “safe” from competition?"

I apologize for the mistake. What I should have written was "there was much lower probability of job loss from competition". And I would say that under no condition is anyone entitled to view their job as safe from competition… it doesn't make it any harder when they lose it. Are these really the points you're quibbling over, Michael? The point is, there's been a lot of job loss and that's hard for people to cope with, but that's not an argument for protectionism. That's all I'm asserting. Is that really such a frustrating point to accept?

Re: "Since — judging from your other comments in other threads — your definition of a “moderate” is anyone who advocates anything less than the immediate imposition of a Stalin-style totalitarian dictatorship,"

??????????

dg lesvic -
RE: "If you're going to blame the free market, you have to explain how it could NOT tend toward equilibrium."

The market is "to blame" insofar as job loss happens in the market. The fact that it's a crisis for those who lose their jobs doesn't mean the market is bad. The cause is the market and international trade. The solution is to keep trading, and in some situations it may be appropriate to help the unemployed make the transition. I'm not sure why you have to prove that it doesn't tend towards equilibrium. Market equilibria will lose some jobs for some people. That's just life. The market is to blame, but the solution isn't to close the market.

RE: "That's the crux of the issue, the forest that seems to have been lost for the trees."

Not by me. The only person here who seems to be railing against free trade is muirgeo. I'm just saying that I sympathize with the unemployed – that's all.

I_am_a_lead_pencil -
RE: "I apologize for the shift in focus from "trade generally" to labor dislocation due to technology. A similar concern for lost jobs and a lack of economic education permeate both."

It's nothing to apologize for. Although some jobs in specific sectors have been lost due to competition, the bulk of job loss in manufacturing (as I understand it) is attributable to technological change. So it's another myth that needs to be addressed. Although there is somewhat of a "job crisis" in manufacturing – not a whole lot of it is due to trade.

"…losing your job is a very hard and disruptive experience, and most of these people entered these careers when there was no prospect of losing them to competition. I think we can be concerned about them without abandoning trade, though."

I'm curious – what does being "concerned about them" suggest that you will (or should) do?

"She may save some cashier jobs today by rejecting this kind of change, but she'll lose more in the long run as a result."

It is for this reason that I would argue that economic education is vital for humanity to thrive to the fullest extent possible. If this acquaintance of mine, rather than picketing the local grocer, spent her time aiding a specific laid off individual, she would likely do far more good. But (nod to Russ) she can do whatever she wants.

I apologize for the shift in focus from "trade generally" to labor dislocation due to technology. A similar concern for lost jobs and a lack of economic education permeate both.

"The point is, it's a job crisis, not a production crisis."

We certainly do have a job crisis.

So, what is the cause and cure?

Was the cause too little interference with the free market, and, the cure, more interference with it?

Or was the cause too much interferrence, and, the cure, less, or even none?

If you're going to blame the free market, you have to explain how it could NOT tend toward equilibrium.

That's the crux of the issue, the forest that seems to have been lost for the trees.

Whatever your faults, you're the most challenging, and valuable, commenter here.

Now, won't you just shut up for a while!?